More heat for Tancredo; Rep. Cannon doubts whether Coloradan should be in GOP

Rocky Mountain News ^ | 5/5/2005 | M.E. Sprengelmeyer

[NormalGuy]

1) Libertarian Republicans like Eric Dondero and myself generally support open border/relaxed immigration for those who come here to work, but not to collect welfare. If a drivers license or matricula enables work, no problem. It it enables welfare, then a problem. Of course, we oopose welfare to citizens and corporations also.

2) Compassionate social conservatives like Bush, and my twp GOP committeeman St Rep Paul Froehlich support relaxed immigration for the same resons they are pro-life. Included in this are many of us citizens who have family/friends who are illegals, eg my inlaws. (My previously illegal wife is now closer to a Rosanna type Mexican than I am.) Both #1 and #2 include strains of abolitionist Republicans who see little difference between slaves and illegals in terms of morality.

3) Mercantilists are those evil corporations who seek that expanded supply of labor for their own gain.

4) Finger-to-the-wind moderates are afraid they will be called racist. Look at how often Minutemen are called racist. I disagree with them. But the ones from Illinois whom I know are not racist

5) Roveites see an opportunity to capture a voting bloc that is conservative on social issues, is pro-family with a strong work ethic and has the lowest rate of application for welfare of those qualified to apply of any ethnic group. Since Paul Froehlich and I have had local success at obtaining the votes of Hispanics, we may have mixed reasons for our position... except that I think the cause and effect on that are the reverse. In my 7 precincts I obtained 100% of the Hispanic vote for Bush (with 1 exception) and for Paul Froehlich in 2001 because I seemed friendly to Hispanics, which I probably am. My suburb is changing from White Trash to Hispanic. I do extremely poorly among divorced people and promiscuous women, which are a large part of the prior demographic.

[chronic_loser]

GREAT POST!!!!!

[chronic_loser]

There are three groups in the OT that the Jews were ABSOLUTELY FORBIDDEN to exploit and commanded to show mercy: 1) the widow 2) the orphan and 3) the foreigner living among them.
These three groups were the most vulnerable and unprotected. Those who see it as moral to assist them do so from the same motivation that prompted me to be a FOUNDER of a Crisis Pregnancy Center and the Metro Right to Life Chapter while in grad school.

If you can see no connection between the two, perhaps you should reconsider that one of the main constituencies of the "foreigner living among" them were slaves taken in war. These were hardly "legal" immigrants, but were remnants of godless hateful cultures who just recently had been engaged in killing Israelites. THESE are the people who are to be the recipients of acts of mercy.

It is nonsensical to equate that type of "foreigner" with the illegals I know, who are mostly honest, hard working wonderful people who would come legally if they could, but will come illegally to make a living if they must. Nevertheless, even if you DO equate the two, we are COMMANDED to show mercy and do acts of kindness, if the ethical ruler of Deuteronomy has any bearing on today.

I do believe that we should get CONTROL of our borders (otherwise, why have them?). That said, when it comes to the attitudes of the "redeemed" on Free Republic towards illegal immigrants, when I compare them to the attitudes of the pagans, I much prefer the pagans.

[montag813]

"I think he ought to consider his views and decide whether they're consistent with the Republican Party," Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah

Cannon will be cannon-fodder when the next election rolls around. I will do ads pro-bono for any major candidates who wish to challenge him in the primary.

[monkeywrench]

Go find a pagan forum, then.

It IS Christian to take care of one's own, first. Allowing this flood of foreigners while we have a welfare state, is sheer kookery, as well as unjust to lawful citizens.

[monkeywrench]

Your inlaws are illegals?

[chronic_loser]

As far as pagan forums, I will just say that there is nothing more pagan than a good dose of moralistic hypocrisy. At least pagans don't take themseleves so seriously
As far as being crazy to allow a flood of foreigners while we have a welfare state, I will agree that it is crazy to have the welfare state. Anyone who claims that the foreigners are straining the welfare state is an idiot. Actually, the illegals SUPPORT the welfare state by paying in the same witheld taxes on their bogus SS numbers as legals do, when they have no ability to collect from any part of the system except medicaid, and public schools. The rest of the taxes (disability, retirement, medicare) are off limits to them.

How 'bout that? Dirty illegal spics actually propping up our system!

Anyway, the system needs busting. If they don't do it, it will collapse of its own redistributionist lies. Better to be done with it.

[mthom]

You outline one of my problems with libertarians. And I am one , sort of. You dont want something to be illegal so you condone it and excuse it, hoping that the momentum caused by the non-enforcement that you helped create in the first place makes some prohibition unrealistic instead of working to change law. That bugs the hell out of me.

[mthom]

oh That and you want to open the borders before we limit government, axe the welfare state, and secure property rights in this country. Until we do that, allowing huge immigration and naturalisation from the left wing south will move this country to the left. Not good.

[mthom]

End of libertarian rant.

[NormalGuy]

As a libertarian, I agree that priorities must be set on what we do first.... cut taxes, spending, regulation and welfare before other things, concurrent with other things, or after.

I'd quickly horsetrade my hypothetical support of legal prostitution for a vote on the above cuts. Immigration presents a different set of pragmatic consequences.

Historically, legal immigration has always required that an immigrant have a financial sponsor in the USA who guarantees that the immigrant will not become a ward of the state. It was on that specific basis that I sponsored my wife to become a legal immigrant...that I would guarantee she would not become dependent on the taxpayers. That was the reason for the existence of ethnic groups like PRCU and PNA - Polish National Alliance.

That long standing historical policy needs to be expanded and enforced. No AFDC, Medicaid, Medicare, SSI, Kidcare, etc for an immigrant, regardless of legal or illegal. For people like me the moral distinction is not "legal" or "illegal", the moral distinction is "come here to work" or "come here to be a parasite".

[mondoman]

Who wrote that headline?

That is the interesting thing about reading the newspaper and the undue influence that page editors have on the process of forming opinions....